'If thought corrupt language, language can corrupt thought', this is a statemnt from an essay 'politics and the English language'written by George Orwell.

In the words of George Orwell, “If thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought.” Language has been spoken for over 350,000 years. It has expanded tremendously, but its power has never changed. The use of language shapes peoples' perceptions and the depth of interactions because it can demean, avoid, portray emphasis, persuade, and conceal from simple phrases such as “I feel like” and “just”.

George Orwell, in an essay from Shooting an Elephant and Other Essays titled “Politics and the English Language” (1950), argues that the English language, through a cyclical process of sloven language and foolish thought, has become “ugly and inaccurate.” He supports his argument by using expert opinion, metaphors, and historical context. Orwell’s purpose is to demonstrate the debasement of the English language in order to prompt writers to make a conscious change in their writing . He adopts an informal tone (“Look back throughout this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against”) for writers in a time of political turnover and rising superpowers.

In George Orwell’s essay, “Politics And The English Language” Orwell discusses how the English language is changing negatively. His purpose is to show how modern writers, especially in politics, has become bogged down with the poor use of language. Orwell does this by using examples, critiques, and inductive reasoning. The author also has a serious tone that shows what he is talking about is very important to him and should be to his audience.

Relationship between thought and language is not something you consider or contemplate in your everyday life. Nevertheless, the answer to this seemingly useless philosophical question might spell the difference between totalitarian control of our minds achieved through manipulation of language and a world of freedom, where human ideas cannot be subjected to blatant perversions as they resonate through intelligent minds, bound only by the power of our imagination. This dilemma has captivated my attention ever since I read Orwell’s “1984” as well as his “Politics and English Language.” In both pieces, Orwell implies a direct correlation between the two notions and paints a horrifying picture of disastrous consequences that a language manipulation can usher in. Orwell’s claim that “if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought” clashed with my own perception of those concepts somewhere deep on a subconscious level. “Language could not possibly alter a thought,” I thought, “How could it? After all, language merely describes my thoughts, whereas thoughts are generally spontaneous ideas, sounds, pictures that flash though my mind’s eye, sometimes so fast, that I fail to grasp them before they fleet away.” Even though in his article Orwell was referring specifically to bad practices that are common in the use of language, the question persisted. Can a language influence thinking in the same manner as thinking influences the words being uttered or does it have

In the article “Lost in Translation”, the author, Lera Boroditsky, maintains as her thesis that the languages we speak not only reflect or express our thoughts, but also shape the very thoughts we wish to express. Boroditsky begins the main section of her essay with the history of the issue of whether or not languages shape the way speakers think. Charlemagne was the first to think that languages do in fact shape the mindset of speaker, but Noam Chomsky rebutted this idea with his thought that languages do not differ much from each other, thus in turn proposing that linguistic differences do not cause a difference in thinking. Now with scientists

Language is an incredibly powerful tool for communication and the words we use control the

In an ever changing world we have seen the number and complexity of languages become reduced. In a Wall Street Journal article entitled What the World Will Speak in 2115, John H. McWhorter advocates for the world to see these changes as necessary and a way for communication worldwide to become more efficient and simplified. McWhorter shows how language has been streamlined for centuries as a way for citizens to adapt rather than viewed as an extinction of culture. Modern English is likely to become the dominant language worldwide but more so for the fact that it can be easily learned and is open to transformation with the times. Despite the fears of a world where lingual diversity is reduced, McWhorter suggests that there will still be variation to promote culture and communication with people from all backgrounds will be easier. The following is a summary and analysis of McWhorter’s main points describing the simplification of language. Following the summary of main points will be a hypothetical situation in what the world language could consist of 100 years from now.

George Orwell’s essay, Politics and the English Language, first published in 1946, talks about some “bad habits”, which have driven the English language in the wrong direction, that is, away from communicating ideas. In his essay he quotes five passages, each from a different author, which embody the faults he is talking about. He lists dying metaphors, operators, pretentious diction, and meaningless words as things to look out for in your own writing and the writing of others (593-595). He talks about political uses of the English language. Our language has become ugly and the ugliness impedes upon communication. Ugly uses of language have been reinforced and passed down in the population “even among people who should and do know

1.Throughout the essay, Orwell talks about many of the problems in English language and how they all contribute to its downfall. One reason for its decline is the use of dying metaphors. A dying metaphor is one that has no impact on the reader, it has no meaning, and doesn’t enhance the readers experience. Another reason is the use of verbal false limbs and pretentious diction, which are used to make single words or short phrases into unnecessarily long and complex phrases in an attempt to sound smarter or more sophisticated. They also use words that are from Greek and Latin language. By bringing in another language into our own, we begin to break away from our origin of the English language. Next, meaningless words are also a problem

The number of Languages spoken throughout the world is estimated to be 6,000. Although a few languages are for wider communication around the world, these are very often spoken as second, third, fourth, or later-acquired languages. Fewer than 25% of the world 's approximately 200 countries recognize two or more official languages, with a mere handful recognizing more than two. Despite there being lots of bilinguals and multilinguals, there is also a bunch of monolingual people in the world. The adult population is allowing their children not to learn a foreign language, drastically underfunding language courses in middle to high school level classes. Because they think it 's not necessary in this century, thinking they don 't require communication with other people from other countries. But the truth is that it can actually benefit in more ways than people think. The United States school system has started to not require foreign language class for graduation requirements, this places the U.S at a disadvantage in the world scene.

Language is the inevitable medium that people use as a means of communication. However, how that person uses the language that they have varies from person to person. Some view language as a persuasive political instrument and others view it as a means of expression and empowerment. In the essay “If Black English Isn’t a Language, Then Tell Me, What Is?” by James Baldwin, he was able to illustrate the history of the discrimination of language and how black English is not accepted as its own language. Baldwin also shows that due to the lack of acknowledgement of black English, it lacks the power it needs to empower the people who speak it. In the essay “Politics and the English Language” by George Orwell, he was able to break down language and explain how language shapes reality. Orwell expresses that he is not considering the literary use of language, but language is an instrument of expression and the promotion of cognitive deliberation and persuasion. Furthermore, both these authors agree that language is a political instrument, however, Baldwin uses this instrument to unite people and Orwell uses the instrument to persuade people.

The main reason that Boroditsky’s argument that language shapes our minds is valid is that the research she did with her teams covers a wide variety of aspects on this topic while still keeping her article cohesive. The first research Boroditsky introduces to her audience is the research on the Kuuk Thaayorre, which is an

Most questions of whether and how language shapes thought start with the simple observation that languages differ from one another. And a lot! Just look at the way people talk, they might say. Certainly, speakers of different languages must attend to strikingly different aspects of the world just so they can use their language properly.

“Language shapes the way we think, and determines what we can think about.” – Benjamin Lee Whorf

The first thing that I was reminded of by this topic is the man and the woman question. We have always been wondering who came first in the world: man or woman? Scientifically it has not been proved yet that who came first. We cannot just come to a conclusion regarding who came first. The same is valid to knowledge and thought. Knowledge and thought are both inter-linked. I will be dealing each concept separately so that we can come to know the relationship between language and thought.